The court affirmed that once ownership is established through registered sale deeds, the mutation of revenue records is a statutory obligation, and prior judicial decisions preclude re-litigation of ownership claims.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity and legality of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, namely, respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner of the subject property, having acquired valid title through an Exchange Deed. Relying on this Exchange Deed, he asserts that the orders of the revenue authorities are unsustainable in law. However, despite his ownership claims, the revenue authorities have proceeded to pass adverse orders against him, prompting him to seek judicial intervention through the present writ petition.

2. The crux of the petitioner’s grievance lies in the mutation proceedings, where he attempted to assert his rights based on the Exchange Deed and a subsequent family partition. He contested the validity of the mutation entries made in favor of respondent No.5 and her husband, who had acquired the property through sale deeds. The revenue authorities, however, declined to accept the petitioner’s contentions, choosing instead to recognize and uphold the sale transactions executed in favor of respondent No.5 and her husband. Further, respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, through his order as per Annexure-D, has not only endorsed the findings of the lower revenue authorities but has also relied on the judicial pronouncements made in O.S.No.671/2007, thereby reinforcing the stand taken against the petitioner.

3. Upon a meticulous examination of the records, it is evident that the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents can be traced back to a complaint filed by the petitioner on 12.08.2015 before the Regional Commissioner (Revenue). This complaint, which is annexed as Annexure-S, marked the genesis of the present controversy. The prayer sought by the petitioner in the said complaint is of particular significance and is extracted herein for reference.

"PRAYER

For the reasons of stating facts in genuineness and the grounds made out by citing three Supreme Court judgments, it is humbly prayed in this Hon'ble authority to pas the appropriate order to the Sub-Registrar, Ramanagaram to cancel the sale deeds registered vide Registration Nos.1634/1993-94, 1635/1993-94 and 1636/1993-94 and to register the name of K.T.Krishnappa to these survey numbers and to pas the slip to prepare check list and also pass an order of cancellation of mutation by which 1 acre, 1 gunta properties in Survey No.178/1 and 178/2 to the name of L.Pothegowda and to pass the appropriate order in the circumstances of this compliant in the interest of justice and equity."

4. On examining the prayer, it is clearly evident that the petitioner, while lodging the complaint with the Regional Commissioner (Revenue), has strangely sought orders at the hands of the Revenue Officials to cancel the sale deeds obtained by the private respondents. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the Revenue Authorities have held an enquiry and have found that the petitioner's grievance cannot be adjudicated under the mutation proceedings. This Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.93/2002 seeking injunction against the private respondent No.5 and her husband relating to the petition land. The competent Civil Court, while answering Issue No.1 in the Negative, has exhaustively dealt with the petitioner's right over the petition land. Para No.14 would be relevant and the same is culled out, which reads as under;

"14. The burden of proving Issue No.1 lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit by way of oral evidence. The plaint averments are all reaffirmed by PW.1 in his affidavit by way of oral evidence. PW.2 Papa Reddy has also filed his affidavit by way of oral evidence and he also states in his affidavit that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of